A new study about guns and gun deaths: Backs up what many have been saying all along

The title of the article is: Restrictive concealed weapons laws can lead to an increase in gun-related murders....

Many at ATS will wonder how this can be?

Simple really, if you are a bad guy, do you want to get into a real fight and maybe be injured (?) or like most predators you pick on the perceived
weak and or old who can not fight back to get what you want....?

Some of us have always argued; CHL or concealed carry when instituted/allowed has a habit of decreasing crime in a state or city.
A valid argument for CHL is always, "look at Chicago (cartel central in the USA) or even our Mexican neighbors to the South where the government does
everything they can (unless you are well connected with money) to stop the population from being armed"... This has led to over 50,000 deaths, many
by beheading; men, women and kids life's taken.... If the population had been armed would the Cartels have been able to get away with murder and
stealing property ? I really do not know...

Chicago has been the murder capitol of the U.S. for the last several years... Good news is, things should start to change in the windy city after a
federal judge ruled their gun ban was unconstitutional.

Another bit of good news IMO; some of the Mexicans are starting to fight back and reclaim farms and cities from the cartels..

From the study:

It may make sense to assume that states in which there are tight laws on weapons would make that state a safer place and one with less gun
crime, however, recent research argues that the very opposite is true.

Mark Gius from Quinnipac University, published in Applied Economics Letters, suggests that this is in fact not the case, research shows that in states
with more restrictive concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws there is actually an increase in gun related crime.

This will not change the anti-position I am well aware.. They believe in a utopian system where all law abiding people will be forced to disarm and
the Bad guys out of the goodness of their heart will turn their guns in too.. Even Mao said something to the effect; Political power grows out of the
barrel of a gun that is one big reason many governments do not want their populations armed.. The government always has a bigger advantage than a
Vegas

Over the period of the study the average murder rate was 3.44, data available in the full article indicates that states with more restrictive
CCW laws had a gun-related murder rate that was 10% higher than the average. In addition to this finding, the Federal assault weapons ban seemed to
make an even bigger impact, with murder rates 19.3% higher when this ban was in effect

The UK has a higher crime rate than the US, but our homicide rate is about 1/4 of the US rate. This is what a 'no hand guns' law does.

Gun control saves lives. Only aout 1/500 of our muggers has what lookes like a gun, and most of what is reported as a gun will be replicas and bb
guns. 'Killed by mugger/robber' is an extremely rare event here for that reason, as are home invasions. Much harder to mug and kill someone with a
knife.

If they got rid of all your handguns and swapped over to long guns, your street crime would be less dangerous. Hard to conceal a 3-4 ft rifle in the
back of your jeans.

Your article is spot on. Many Dems don't want you to be able to protect yourself. They will only populate the sad stories of the lone crazy gunman,
and mostly suppress the successful stories of the citizens that fought back. For instance, the old man in Chicago who killed an armed criminal that
broke into his house, was arrested for having a firearm in Chicago! The net is filled with stories of citizens defending themselves against murderous
thugs, we just don't hear about them.
SnF

lonegurkha
Here's a good reminder of what gun control is all about.Paul Harvey

Something to think about.

From your link:

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn
from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that
country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

While the middle east had guns coming out of the wazoo and had to put up with vicious regimes that murdered dissidents for decades. Guns do not equate
to civil liberty or personal safety.

Communication systems are the key to the populace being empowered and safe from dictators. Keeping the army engaged with the civillian population is
also key. As is freedom of speech and a fuctioning free media. A large empowered middle class is also crucial, which is why you see civil rights in
East Asia become better as their middle classes increase.

Guns do squat. In the UK we watch the level of gun crime and then the way your authorites treat your population and shake our heads in disbelief.

lonegurkha
Here's a good reminder of what gun control is all about.Paul Harvey

Something to think about.

From your link:

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn
from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that
country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.

That's a very misleading peice of text. The firearms deaths went from 7 to 19. Doesn't sound anywhere near as impressive as up 300% does it. In
fact, firearms related crimes were always very low there, so any variation looks huge in percentage terms.The same research shows that the Australia
wide murder rate was lower after the buy back than before. That info you are posting is BS.

I looked the research up before, this post here breaks it down nicely for the masses: www.snopes.com...

While watching some game with my 5 year old daughter we got to see a preview for the movie "2 Guns" with Denzel and Markie Mark. It seems to be
quite the bullet and gun laced movie. A gun was either being aimed or fired throughout the entire preview. This gave rise to a wise question from a
5 year old: "Daddy, does everyone have a gun?"
At first I giggled to myself and ALMOST let the honest answer out but thought better of it. "Yes, they do." I answered in all seriousness. I feel
that this is the safest way for my children to navigate the world we live in. I don't feel the arguments on either side of this debate are being
honest with the public at large. The Anti-gun movement says more gun laws! Were these shooters not guilty of any gun laws? These shooters usually
die therefor charges are never even discussed. Usually the weapons have been stolen from a loved one by an unstable person. Stolen by a person who
is legally barred from a gun. If a high percentage of these shooters are guilty of gun laws - what would more laws do? Answer - punish the lawful.
I have lived all over this country in red and blue states. States like Mississippi where everyone and their mother carries a gun in the car. Also in
California - the liberal ideal for gun control. Guess what - everyone I knew owned a gun in both places. We love our guns. Most people here agree
that there are much deeper motives for this violence but good luck getting that across. Maybe these kids are fed up with the piles of crap they are
forced to digest as fact. I don't think it helps our children with a message to all the psychos out there that "Hey, it's not your fault - it's
the guns and the lack of gun laws!"
Think about differently. Give it the Rush Limbaugh test. Rush loves the drug war. Always has - even while downing pain killers the entire time.
Same on the left. What percentage of anti-gun liberals actually OWN guns while publicly conceding an aversion to them? My guess is its a high
number. We are forced to eat tons of crap at the expense of political agendas. Facts are thrown out the window in favor of political maneuvering on
both sides. This is a dangerous way to operate especially in this day and age with facts at your fingertips. These young generations might not be
prepared to put on mom n dads blinders while navigating a tough world getting tougher.

Equating the Middle East which is infested with a culture that glorifies dying for their religion as the highest form of worship in a sense is a bit
of a stretch. You do know they sell posters of martyred suicide bombers in some regions the same way we sell posters of Justin Beiber over here? But,
I'm sure that mentality would have absolutely no impact whatsoever on how they view weapons and their uses ...

Also, this is indicative of the differing place of weaponry in the two cultures and the differing values each places on life.

For the most part, Americans don't want guns to use on their neighbors. To them, the gun is a tool used for hunting or for defense. It's a thing to
be respected, not use aggressively against others.

However, in other other places, the gun is a tool of aggression used to attack. Or it's an instrument of power used to oppress others and keep them
under your thumb.

Their are plenty of people who want to think that the only possible place a gun has if for the second purpose, but if that were true, they wouldn't
even want to let armies of policemen have it which they seem to be OK with. So, it defaults to the gun as an instrument and symbol of power. They
simply want to make sure that only one side has the power, and that it's the side they deem to be the only "legitimate" side of authority.
Sometimes, they are insecure with the idea that individuals can be trusted with a certain amount of power and authority in and of themselves, and
sometimes, they truly do want the only legitimate power to be concentrated in one body for the purposes of controlling everyone else. The trick is to
try to figure out which on you are dealing with and handle them accordingly.

I firmly believe that when google glass or some derivative of such, society will become much safer. Look what the dash cams for the police did? Sure
there are some events of the police behaving improperly, but they are way down. Why? Because they are being watched. If a thug approaches you and you
are wearing google glass, it will all be recorded. Like my dropcam, the video will be stored on line. So even if the thug destroys them (glasses or
people), the video is still available for criminal prosecution.

At the beginning of this technological revolution, there will be horrendous things captured and posted online that governments will be forced to
address. Everyone will be held accountable for their actions. Just like the wild west when everyone was armed.

An armed, or surveilled society is a polite society. Welcome to "1984" or Orwellian times. Your safety will come at a cost of your freedom!

I believe which society we're talking about is important, and I'd assume the OP is talking about the US. For instance, if adding concealed handguns
to England or Italy or Japan? I think there would be disaster on a stick. They are societies totally and absolutely unaccustomed to widespread private
ownership of firearms, let alone carry in public. Accidental shootings alone would probably bust records as basically a whole society would learn the
basics of something rarely, if ever done before, at the same time.

On the other hand? I absolutely agree that armed, law abiding citizens can do nothing but help a crime situation, where firearms are the norm and a
standard part of life from childhood, onward.

Carrying here where I am is the norm and not the exception for those able by law, and we don't have shootout between citizens. Never have that I'm
personally aware of...but a few criminals are dead who otherwise wouldn't have been...and some victims, alive who may well not have otherwise
been.

So, I'd really say which nation and which society is considered, makes all the difference.

In other words, there is no cultural context for what responsible private gun ownership looks like. Our culture isn't theirs nor should we expect it
to be. You'd have better luck in a place like Australia where they had such a context before confiscation.

I was pointing this out in a drug legalization argument the other day. We don't have a cultural framework for what legalizing these substances looks
like whereas during the end of Prohibition, everyone knew what culturally responsibly alcohol usage should look like. I'm not sure how you develop
one, but is sudden wholesale legalization the answer for it? Doubtful.

ArcAngel
I firmly believe that when google glass or some derivative of such, society will become much safer. Look what the dash cams for the police did? Sure
there are some events of the police behaving improperly, but they are way down. Why? Because they are being watched. If a thug approaches you and you
are wearing google glass, it will all be recorded. Like my dropcam, the video will be stored on line. So even if the thug destroys them (glasses or
people), the video is still available for criminal prosecution.

At the beginning of this technological revolution, there will be horrendous things captured and posted online that governments will be forced to
address. Everyone will be held accountable for their actions. Just like the wild west when everyone was armed.

An armed, or surveilled society is a polite society. Welcome to "1984" or Orwellian times. Your safety will come at a cost of your freedom!

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.